|
Horatio Sanz groomed a teenage "SNL fan" girl and invited her to the NBC studios plus parties. When it was found out she was a junior in high school, other people at the party (cast members, executives, etc) were just quiet about it. The grooming and later abuse lasted for years. The lawsuit paints a picture of this type of behavior being normal at NBC.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
Weaponized Autism posted:Horatio Sanz groomed a teenage "SNL fan" girl and invited her to the NBC studios plus parties. When it was found out she was a junior in high school, other people at the party (cast members, executives, etc) were just quiet about it. The grooming and later abuse lasted for years. The lawsuit paints a picture of this type of behavior being normal at NBC. None of this is new since the original article on Sanz broke, though. Is that really all that’s in the video?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 20:33
|
|
|
Yeah the video is more of a summary of the lawsuit, I don't think it exposes anything new that we may not already know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
Weaponized Autism posted:Pretty eye-opening on the lawsuit for Horatio Sanz and NBC: Bizarre setup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
The buried Lede in the Sans stuff is how prevalent Jimmy Fallon is in all of it and how obviously they were definitely just children hanging out with fully grown adults at bars talking about, like, class and school and stuff. Like there is nothing even approaching plausible deniability, Fallon and Sans may as well have picked them up from school Seinfeld style.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Bizarre setup.  Me just chillin in my home talkin bout sexual assault
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:The buried Lede in the Sans stuff is how prevalent Jimmy Fallon is in all of it and how obviously they were definitely just children hanging out with fully grown adults at bars talking about, like, class and school and stuff. Like there is nothing even approaching plausible deniability, Fallon and Sans may as well have picked them up from school Seinfeld style. Oh, they're both loving super creeps who should burn. That is without a doubt true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
They'll throw Sanz under the bus because he's a nobody and then at best Fallon will make some kind of half assed apology on twitter but mostly he'll say nothing and NBC will just be like "We had no way of knowing! It was a different time people just didn't notice these things but we've learned and we're sorry and blah blah blah" and then everybody will forget in a week. Jimmy Fallon is NBC and Lorne Michael's golden boy for some reason so he's pretty much bullet proof. I don't even think this story is big enough so far that people are even going to notice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:The buried Lede in the Sans stuff is how prevalent Jimmy Fallon is in all of it and how obviously they were definitely just children hanging out with fully grown adults at bars talking about, like, class and school and stuff. Like there is nothing even approaching plausible deniability, Fallon and Sans may as well have picked them up from school Seinfeld style. Fallon was there helping write Sanz write emails to the high school girl, I guess to try and make sure he didn't get too creepy and scare her off? I don't know what the deal is but it sounds extremely hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Fallon was there helping write Sanz write emails to the high school girl, I guess to try and make sure he didn't get too creepy and scare her off? I don't know what the deal is but it sounds extremely hosed up. No, more like Fallon was at all the after-parties where these underage girls were getting plied with alcohol and openly raped in front of people while others ignored it or said "Oh give me a loving break, she's in high school!" and then ignored it. It all just sounded degenerate and horrible and Fallon was in the middle of it all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2021 01:29
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:
Hey there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
I can never tell if this guy’s a crypto-chud or not A lot of his video topics and general theses seem fairly above-board but he exudes major libertarian “rationalist” energy, and his takes on society/lib poo poo/etc don’t always strike me as entirely progressive
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
He has several videos about how the rich suck. I could've missed the ones that give off that vibe though. I'm glad he did a video about how Patent Scam was a bad documentary even though it's about a subject that deserves a good one especially after I found out the guy who made it (and was screwed over by a patent troll) is a Musk moron.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:He has several videos about how the rich suck. I could've missed the ones that give off that vibe though. Yeah, that’s what I mean. Like I’m not going to go wasting time watching a bunch of old GRS videos for evidence over a vibe that may or may not be borne out, he’s not a creator that I keep up with or is on my radar these days. But now I’m like half worried that somebody’s gonna come in and jump down my throat again about citing my posts over this, and I’m really not trying to say anything conclusive or definitive. I just distinctly remember seeing some stuff of his criticizing some aspect of mainstream/liberal society culture that seemed to come from a decidedly “both sides” place (or like a “sarcastic talky white guy” perspective) rather than a progressive or leftist one, but I could definitely be 100% off. But also “The depredations of the rich elite” and “look at this horrible gross Hollywood poo poo” are one of the places where a lot of leftube, libertarian, and hard right content overlap and sometimes it can be legit hard to tell a channel’s ideology and motives unless the creator is openly LGBTQ/BIPoC or they proactively endorse progressive talking points
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AnnaAkana/status/1433577418279698439?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
I found a thread about this on Reddit where people who read it pointed out that apparently he takes time in the thing he wrote to relitigate his dad’s complicity in child death and how John Landis totally feels really sad about it all the time but also isn’t responsible
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 06:58
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:I found a thread about this on Reddit where people who read it pointed out that apparently he takes time in the thing he wrote to relitigate his dad’s complicity in child death and how John Landis totally feels really sad about it all the time but also isn’t responsible Yeah, he’s whined about people being mean to daddy before. I mean sure, three people died due to his negligence but his dad feels really bad about it and people are mean to him on the internet, so isn’t he the real victim when you think about it? Yeah it sucks those kids died, but at least they don’t have to deal with all these mean jokes all the time. He’s a real piece of poo poo for a multitude of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2021 14:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JoshDenny/status/1433553773700411395?s=20 https://twitter.com/JoshDenny/status/1433093459359846402?s=20 https://twitter.com/JoshDenny/status/1433657098429100032?s=20 https://twitter.com/JoshDenny/status/1434265226547892224?s=20 https://twitter.com/JoshDenny/status/1434237991635939328?s=20 https://twitter.com/JoshDenny/status/1434028467616579590?s=20 https://twitter.com/JoshDenny/status/1433568529119264774?s=20 https://twitter.com/JoshDenny/status/1433596623041433604?s=20 yeah idk who he is either but blue check because chuds I guess
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 02:28
|
|
|
From context I assume he was the host of a Food Network show
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
i mean that's like saying I direct Burn Hollywood Burn for a living
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 02:50
|
|
|
I love that nobody has anybody who that dipshit is, and will completely forget his name when they leave this thread. It's all he deserves, whoever he is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 02:51
|
|
|
Based on the other quotes I assume the story goes that he left the party early.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 03:55
|
|
|
King Vidiot posted:I love that nobody has anybody who that dipshit is, and will completely forget his name when they leave this thread. It's all he deserves, whoever he is. watch him end up on Shabibo’s show and parlay that into a z-list “entertainment” career of shilling Freedom Phones and warming up crowds at CPAC
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 04:23
|
|
|
It's kind of especially depressing given the popularized stories about how Brad threatened to kill Weinstein for making Gwenyth Paltrow uncomfortable Like, as a young dude he felt able to lash out and take a stand... and then he apparently reached the point of allowing that treatment of his wife.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 12:27
|
|
|
Benjamin button but it's a virgin brad vs chad brad meme
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 12:39
|
|
|
Martman posted:Like, as a young dude he felt able to lash out and take a stand... and then he apparently reached the point of allowing that treatment of his wife. There probably is also an aspect of 1995 Pitt having enough power to wield while still being naive about what potential consequences there could while 2010 Pitt had enough experience to know he'd been making deals with different devils his whole career and became jaded and mercenary about what deals he made, but how a person perceives the value of the stance weighs just as much as how they perceive the consequences. It's possible, maybe even likely, that 1995 Pitt would have given less weight to a story from a decade earlier and 2010 Pitt would have acted more brashly to contemporary account.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
Yo call me old fashioned but if my wife tells me “so-and-so tried to sexually assault me, I was trapped in his office and had to escape” I wouldn’t ever ask for that guys help or money. What I’m saying is Brad Pitt is a gross piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Yo call me old fashioned but if my wife tells me “so-and-so tried to sexually assault me, I was trapped in his office and had to escape” I wouldn’t ever ask for that guys help or money. Bust, you just don’t understand. Brad was trying to make a lot of money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
My point was not to defend Brad Pitt. It was that he's probably the same person he was back then and the difference isn't that he changed his values, it's that he met his price. Maybe to put it another way: I'm not annoyed by the criticism of 2010 Brad Pitt, I'm annoyed by the deification of 1995 Brad Pitt as if he was some superior human being rather than a hothead who happened to do the right thing with his hotheadedness. Praising or criticizing action is a good start, but if we stop there we lose sense of why people do things; and without addressing why people do things it's very hard to enact or support actual change vs a facade that will inevitably come crumbling down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
It's kind of interesting to me - the article seems to suggest that Brad Pitt erred when he approached Weinstein for help on this 2012 film Killing The Softly, but that it was OK when he did Inglourious Basterds back in 2009 which was also distributed by The Weinstein Company. Is this because he didn't produce Basterds, or that because it was a very well-regarded and successful Tarantino film that it was somehow OK? I'm not trying to be flippant here, I really do wonder about this sort of thing. For one thing, Tarantino has really flown over this whole Weinstein thing and come out without hardly a mark on him, which I find somewhat odd. There's a sort of... reverse-stigma in Hollywood where as long as you're regarded as brilliant and successful enough, it's extremely difficult for any kind of dirt to stick to you for very long unless you really gently caress up. And even then, if you're considered brilliant enough there will always be people willing to look past that and work with you - Polanski is a fine example of this, and Woody Allen as well. Both guys transgressed HUGELY, but big stars will still work with them and they still get funding.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
kaworu posted:I'm not trying to be flippant here, I really do wonder about this sort of thing. For one thing, Tarantino has really flown over this whole Weinstein thing and come out without hardly a mark on him, which I find somewhat odd. There's a sort of... reverse-stigma in Hollywood where as long as you're regarded as brilliant and successful enough, it's extremely difficult for any kind of dirt to stick to you for very long unless you really gently caress up. And even then, if you're considered brilliant enough there will always be people willing to look past that and work with you - Polanski is a fine example of this, and Woody Allen as well. Both guys transgressed HUGELY, but big stars will still work with them and they still get funding. I mean, Tarantino appears to be allowed to use the N word as much as he wants so
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
kaworu posted:It's kind of interesting to me - the article seems to suggest that Brad Pitt erred when he approached Weinstein for help on this 2012 film Killing The Softly, but that it was OK when he did Inglourious Basterds back in 2009 which was also distributed by The Weinstein Company. Is this because he didn't produce Basterds, or that because it was a very well-regarded and successful Tarantino film that it was somehow OK? There's a difference between taking a job on a movie that was distributed by the Weinstein Company and personally working with Harvey Weinstein to help make your own movie. Both are bad, but they're different levels. Also we don't know when Angelina Jolie told him about the assault.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
Unrelated to the content of the article, but… quote:
This is professional writing, apparently. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Unrelated to the content of the article, but… Dudes rock. But seriously? what the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 00:47
|
|
|
It sounds like the set-up for a cut scene from Aronofsky’s mother!.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
It's especially gross in the context of that article, but it's sadly common for those kinds of long form interview write ups in magazines and newspapers. It'd be nice if that garbage stopped, but the writers probably see themselves as aspiring novelists and don't understand a) there's a difference between writing about fictional characters vs real people and b) there's a difference between painting a picture and being creepy and exhausting. Another journalistic habit that annoys me in a lot of links posted here is the reflexive need to promote the works of the people involved. For example that Guardian article ends with: Know Your Rights by Angelina Jolie is published by Andersen Press at £7.99. To support the Guardian and Observer, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply. Which all in all is still better than the articles that are: *article about Louis CK being a creep* his latest special is available at his website.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
It's an eye roll when they describe a celebrity that we've seen a gazillion times before and there's probably also a picture of them right there on the facing page if you somehow forgot what Angelina Jolie looked like. The promotional thing is silly but sometimes is a condition of getting the interview or publishing the syndicated thing so I can see how it gets in there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 03:10
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:Unrelated to the content of the article, but… A dame walked into my office “It’s my husband,” she said with them gams crossing like a runway model and a red dress the shade of lipstick, “he’s working for that slimeball Harvey”
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
She sighed breastfully.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2021 05:49
|
|
